That's seems odd. So many possibilities there I'm surprised there isn't a general prohibition on this to be able to add that on in the case of a shooting that was not justified. Although, I'm a little glad there isn't. I'm sure that would/could get even more folks into trouble without ever having actually done anything wrong. Especially in their own home.srothstein wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:52 pmMinor technical correction, but location does make a difference. Note that 46.035(d) only makes carrying while intoxicated illegal if you are a license holder carrying under the authority of the license. You are only carrying under the authority of your license if it would be illegal to carry otherwise. Since it is not illegal to carry on your own premises or premises under your control, 46.035 dos not apply to you in those locations.C-dub wrote: ↑Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:53 amBoth parts of this are wrong. It is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying, but not simply drinking an alcoholic beverage. Location is irrelevant. Intoxicated is still intoxicated. The probability of being caught are much lower unless your next statement comes into play.
If you're going to a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol, you're probably not going to get drunk. One or two glasses of beer or wine is not gonna hurt anything.
It could get even trickier if you happen to have multiple ways to carry. For example, is a police officer who has an LTC carrying under the authority of his LTC or his commission? He should not be intoxicated either, but I doubt anyone would try to apply that law to him.
Now that makes me even more curious regarding Amber Guyger's BAC. Could she even be charged with carrying while intoxicated if she were? Or any other off-duty LEO for that matter that does not have an LTC or equivalent?